And there is a hearing going on right now in the Dane County Courthouse before Judge Sumi:

Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, a Democrat, filed a complaint this month to block the law. He contended that a committee of lawmakers violated the open meetings law when it approved the measure, which was a key step to advancing it to the GOP-controlled Assembly and Senate.... Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi on March 18 said Ozanne's case was likely to succeed and blocked Democratic Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law.

But on Friday, the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau - which was not under the court order - published the law. The director of the reference bureau, Stephen Miller, said Friday that statutes required him to take that step, but that he does not believe the law takes effect until the secretary of state acts. Last week, the Department of Justice appealed Sumi's temporary restraining order. The appeals court panel said the state Supreme Court should take the case, but the high court hasn't ruled on whether it will take it. On Monday, the Department of Justice asked to withdraw its appeal, saying the law had now been published. It also asked Sumi to vacate the temporary restraining order, withdraw Tuesday's hearing and dismiss La Follette from the case.

Ozanne, meanwhile, asked Sumi to declare that the reference bureau's actions did not constitute publication of the law under the state constitution and that the bureau is subject to and had violated the restraining order. He further asked the judge to order the reference bureau to remove the act from the Legislature's website.... Arguments are scheduled for 8:30 a.m. Tuesday in Ozanne's case, on whether a preliminary injunction should be issued. But the dispute over publication of the law adds a new wrinkle that the judge could take up.

Meade is in the courtroom — along with a big crowd of anti-Walkerites. I'm in touch via text and will update.

UPDATE: Meade leaves the hearing, saying: "This is not a job for New Media Meade." The courtroom is full of reporters, and there will be detailed reports of whatever goes on as a result of this hearing which is loaded with legalistic complexities. I'll read that stuff and get back to you later. Briefly, Sumi put aside the argument that the LRB publication has mooted the case and is holding the scheduled hearing.

But minutes later, outside the court room, Assistant Attorney General Steven Means said the legislation "absolutely" is still in effect....

Sumi noted she has not yet found that lawmakers violated the open meetings law, but noted the Legislature could resolve the matter by passing the bill again. Andrew Welhouse, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau), said there are no plans to try to pass the bill again....

[T]he Department of Justice tried to halt the hearing in Sumi's court, saying the law is now in effect and legislators are immune from civil proceedings. But Sumi said the case must continue for now.

It will be really interesting to see how many of those protesting teacher's write $180 checks the WEA to cover this month's dues. I also wonder after having spent heavily over the last 3 months and spending now on ads, the Court election and recall, if the WEA might have sudden cash flow problems. I hope the AFL-CIO will bail them out, cuz a number of Madison banks may not be interested in lending these days.

The Democrats (and their Union masters) have stopped at nothing to prevent this. We have to be sure the Republicans stop at nothing to get it done. If the Unions prevail in Wisconsin it will send a message to every other State: Public Employees will never, ever give up anything to cure budget crises, no matter how many laws they have to break to get their way. It would be the beginning of the end for our Country if mob rule is allowed to reign in Wisconsin.

This whole court proceding is such a farce. I've researched the rules, the law, and applied them to the facts - and see no basis for even entertaining the DA's motion, much less granting it. I'll be very interested in hearing the impressions of Meade as he watches the circus in person.

I am most interested to know whether state workers will see an increase in pay now that the state won't be taking out the union dues. Granted, these workers will also be contributing more to their pensions and health care, so where will it shake out? As an increase or a decrease. If the net result is an increase in pay, then we may see many state workers begin to question what they're fighting for. We may actually see an awakening.

Unfortunately, this judicial election may end up reversing all the progress we've made, and then it'll be back to business as usual, with the unions running the state and their Democrat lapdogs doing their bidding.

Sumi seems to have gotten herself into a real fix here. For one thing, just look at the contradiction:

"Ozanne, meanwhile, asked Sumi to declare that the reference bureau's actions did not constitute publication of the law under the state constitution and that the bureau is subject to and had violated the restraining order"

If the reference bureau's publication does not constitute publication, then it cannot have violated the restraining order.

It is pretty clear Sumi overstepped her bounds. Now, she has to either double down or extract herself.

The other interesting question is who does Ozanne think his client is? He is the states district attorney, not the Democrats nor the unions.

I no longer believe this to be an irrational fear, as I did in years past.

Recent events here and around the globe are making me reconsider my views that all so-called "conspiracy theorists" are alike in being completely "out there" (although some certainly are). The reality of various situations is just a bit too nutty for my taste recently.

MadisonMan sez: Why don't the Republicans just re-pass the bill and make all of this moot? I understand this sentiment. While I do not believe there is any basis on which to challenge the current law . . . I kinda wish they'd have avoided this whole court fiasco by just passing it AGAIN.

Plus, the average citizen doesn't seem to completely understand issues like standing, legislative rules, special sessions, etc., and it may have been simpler for the legislature to simply re-pass the thing.

OTOH, there's no guarantee the dems would not find some excuse to continue wasting everyone's time by challenging that law, too. Sigh.

"Rule-following" is big in the Midwest, eh? Except when the rules say to do your job, don't flee the State, obey the Constitution, don't issue death threats, don't vandalize monuments, don't attack lawmakers who disagree with you and stuff like that, right?

Why don't the Republicans just re-pass the bill and make all of this moot?

I'm guessing there are several reasons. First of all, they believe the procedure was legal and that they will prevail in the end. Re-voting only will give the Democrats the opportunity for more mischief. Do you really believe that some new objection/tactic won't be employed to delay/stop/derail the bill? Also, why give the protesting clowns an excuse to re-energize the Capitol freak show? This thing will be decided in the Supreme court no matter what happens now. There is no upside to starting over.

Why don't the Republicans just re-pass the bill and make all of this moot?

Because there is no reason to believe that such a re-passed bill would not be challenged by the Democrats and blocked by a liberal judge. Why restart the process just to end up in the same place in a couple of weeks when they have a valid law in place right now?

UPDATE: Meade leaves the hearing, saying: "This is not a job for New Media Meade." The courtroom is full of reporters, and there will be detailed reports of whatever goes on as a result of this hearing which is loaded with legalistic complexities. I'll read that stuff and get back to you later. Briefly, Sumi put aside the argument that the LRB publication has mooted the case and is holding the scheduled hearing.

Bravo. As an old media guy, he made the correct decision. There are better ways for him to spend his time covering things that the pros do not.

It is a fascinating review of how an incensed minority moves to prevent a law from being implemented by the majority. They failed in the legislature, now they are trying the courts and using their allies in the government to exercise raw political power. After all, its hard to see how the prosecutor in this caqse is behaving as a "minister of justice." Where is the justice in prosecuting over an open meetings violation that everyone knows in substance was not violated. Its pure raw politics.

I'm still rooting for a scenario where all the Dems get their marching orders from Trumka, et al. and take off to Illinois again. They're already a national punchline, but another "Escape From Madison" episode will cement them as historic laughingstocks. I think even the WI press would start ignoring them if they took off again.

Good! Governor Walker is doing what he was elected to do. What if the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin force him to "put the money back?"

It's not something that would go "silently into that good night." It might be one of those things where, like Libya, done to make sure Q-Daffy doesn't expose the billions in bank transfers he made over the years to buy Sarkozy. And, Tony Blair (not in office). And, the Clinton's. With Hillary sending in 112 Tomahawks. Something she couldn't do when White Water broke for her. Nor could she do this to Tyson's Chicken Ranch. (Still there are rumors out of Arkansas, that the dead bodies got buried.)

You think it's not obvious to people what's going on?

Walker does NOT have to give up Executive privileges! If the courts take him on? State level. They'll find their budgets get the first wack of the ax. That's why judges tend to play politics, so that they don't decrease the size of their dollars. They already don't have an army they can call their own, ya know. Because we have the Second Amendment for the HARD OF HEARING!

I am most interested to know whether state workers will see an increase in pay now that the state won't be taking out the union dues.

Union dues are about 1% of salary. If they choose not to pay dues, that 1% recovery will be more than completely offset by the health care premiums (going from $89 per month to $208 per month for the lowest "tier 1" level of family coverage). Then there will the 5.8% after tax deduction for mandatory retirement contributions. It will be a net decrease of 7 - 9 % in take home income for most, depending on their pay.

They have them because they have already spent their political capital voting for it in the first place. A changed vote won't change the mind of a union voter and it will only make their supporters mad. This is a rare issue where all of the politicians are all in. The WI GOP finally understands just how low liberal union folks will go.

Revoting simply draws out the process because the Dems are going to sue regardless, even if they have to invent things like the wrong font was used to publish the law.

The move by the DOA freezes unions across the state from trying to rush deals through at the local level. It's fighting a delaying tactic with a delaying tactic.

The Dems have one power piece and their king on the chessboard and Walker has something of everything. The Dems can maneuver that one piece to protect the king, but every move is limiting and eventually checkmate will happen.

The Dems have one power piece and their king on the chessboard and Walker has something of everything. The Dems can maneuver that one piece to protect the king, but every move is limiting and eventually checkmate will happen.

I assume, by this, you mean the court challenges. Not much power in that piece, unless the courts are completely corrupt, which I am not yet ready to believe. They're merely attempting to delay the inevitable. It's something I see all the time in my cases. It's wasteful (of time and other resources), but often effective - but only as a delay tactic; rarely to get a different result.

Triangle Man said...I am most interested to know whether state workers will see an increase in pay now that the state won't be taking out the union dues.

Union dues are about 1% of salary. If they choose not to pay dues, that 1% recovery will be more than completely offset by the health care premiums (going from $89 per month to $208 per month for the lowest "tier 1" level of family coverage). Then there will the 5.8% after tax deduction for mandatory retirement contributions. It will be a net decrease of 7 - 9 % in take home income for most, depending on their pay.

3/29/11 10:43 AM

So having mandatory dues deduction will result in a further one percent reduction. Since the unions already agreed to the benefit and retirement concession before this current state of affairs what are they arguing about now if not for a further decrease in pay?

Just tell me where I can sign myself off the TAA Union list. I'm sick of paying those stoned clowns to fund beer socials at the Rathskeller (the bar in the student union at UW), as well as the Democrats political campaigns.

With her son a union apparatchik and her husband a heavy donor to left wing politicians - why doesn't Sumi recuse herself?

I disagree with the recusal argument, at least on the facts stated here (and as we know them).

What her son and husband do is not sufficient to force her to recuse herself from decicing a case that implicates merely their AREA of interest (if it was her husband's actual company, probably, but not his ideology).

There is no logical stopping point to such an argument. What if my neice is head of the AFL? What if my brother-in-law is a big Walker supporter? What if my husband belongs to a union? Do I need to recuse myself from a case like this one? No.

Unless there is a direct conflict of interest (which is defined in the rules of professional responsibility), I do not agree that she needs to recuse herself.

That said, there are many reasons to simply dismiss the DA's case, including lack of standing, lack of ripeness, and dismissal on the merits. But, under the facts asserted here (which I've seen elsewhere), recusal was not necessary.

One can only hope Judge Sumi issues a grand, sweeping ruling - one that puts everyone, including the governor, in their place. A ruling that will go down in the annals of political genius, an extra-legal decision that will re-set the corrupt political tone for the next hundred years.

Or, just call the whole thing off. To declare her court a playpen where children of the silly have gathered for the sake of... silliness.

Thanks, LawGirl. Not sure how I missed the post. I read your analysis, which seems to say, in short: SOS has the job of designating a date for publication, but not actually publishing. Assuming that's true, the judge can Order SOS not to publish as much as she likes, but that would have about the same effect as her ordering me to not date supermodels. It just wouldn't matter.

Apparently, LaFollette (one of my least favorite WI politicians)has "rescinded" his designation of the publishing date. Is there statutory authority for this?

You also reference that the SOS doesn't have authority to publsih the law "any longer." Was there a statutory change, and if so, wouldn't that significantly weaken the DA's position if the law once gave that authority to SOS, and then removed the authority in favor of the LRB? Seems fairly open and shut. Have you read any compelling argument against that position?

Patrick: I think you got the nutshell version. Here's an even smaller nutshell for ya: SOS designates a publication date - SOS did this/LRB publishes - LRB did this, on the date designated by SOS/I could find no authority for SOS to withdraw designation/court order says "SOS, don't publish [not "LRB, don't publish" and not "SOS, don't designate"], so court order is irrelevant (in addition to all of the other problems with it, including issues of standing, ripeness, jurisdiction, etc. etc. etc.)

My "any longer" comment wasn't the product of my own historical research, but a nod to Rick Essenberg and some of his commenters, who referenced the history of the Secretary of State's powers with resepct to publication further up in that post and comment thread. I have not independently verified their research, but wanted to avoid getting off on a tangent by including a nod to the likelihood that those who posted before me had researched the issue.

Even if they were completely wrong, the reasoning in my comment does not suffer because it is not dependent upon this.

If they are right, however, you're right - I think a CHANGE in the law relating to publication provides strong evidence that the legislature that enacted the change knew they were affecting the rights and obligations of these officials in very specific ways that are implicated here.

As to whether I've seen persuasive arguments to the contrary, I truly do try to be very fair, particularly in my analysis of legal issues. In other words, I read the text of relevant black letter law, determine if there is any ambiguity in it, read case law that supports or undermines my reading of the black letter law to determine what the likely state of it is today, and apply the law, as interpreted, to the facts of a particular situation.

Using this method of analysis, I have not yet seen persuasive arguments to the contrary and my own reading of the law seems to lead to the inevitable conclusion that the law is in force.

The American legal system bestows an unprecedented level of judicial immunity on a sitting judge - which throws the door open to all manner of judicial abuses. And I am confident Judge Sumi will walk through that door without restraint or hesitation, especially if it means her over-stepping the wildest dreams of any previous kangaroo court.

Thanks, Bliss. I found that interesting. From the linked post by Rick Esenberg, after explaining why the law is (in his words) "probably" effective (I don't see room for even the tiny level of doubt he expresses, but I accept that reasonable people can differ around the edges):

There are two lessons here. First, a close reading of the law matters. Second, mistakes happen when courts behave in a rash manner.

It is questionable that Judge Sumi ever had authority to enjoin publication of the law. There is Supreme Court precedent that seems to say – quite clearly – that publication is part of the legislative process and is not subject to judicial restraint. Perhaps, as some have suggested, the open meetings law somehow changes the general rule but Judge Sumi not only failed to explain why she felt she could enjoin publication, her opinion did not even acknowledge the issue. Nor did it explain why enjoining publication – as opposed to a post-publication injunction against its enforcement – was necessary.

Had these issues been more carefully considered rather than obscured by the hot house atmosphere in Dane County, we’d have a less tangled situation.

Oh, and I do find it ironic that all of this began with an exploitation of the procedural rules governing quorum . . .

(I use the pejorative "exploit" because it involved them FLEEING the state to accomplish it!) . . .

And that, when the Republicans used (or, go ahead and say "exploited" - it doesn't change the analysis) similar procedural rules in the Dems' absence and the non-partisan LRB FOLLOWED procedural rules in publishing the law, the Dems are up in arms over how these activities involve exploiting a supposed "loophole" in the law.

What really happened was, both parties used procedural rules to their advantage. The Dems did it to avoid voting on something they didn't like. The Republicans did it, in part, to get that measure passed and, in part, to get the Dems to come back to work. For its part, the LRB was simply following the law.

The inconsistency in how some have viewed these events is truly amazing.

If the Republicans do decide to do a revote, I hope they have the sense to include an explicit 'effective date' in the law. We don't want to give the SoS the opportunity to not specify one and therefore prevent the law from becoming effective.

As the righter of great wrongs, Judge Sumi would have ruled against OJ in her sleep. Just like her contemporary did in Las Vegas.

For what better place to undo all the wrongs of men, than in women's court. But in Madison, Simpson would have gotten life for jaywalking against feminism, as opposed to plotting to steal from himself.

The inconsistency in how some have viewed these events is truly amazing.

I agree. I also find it stunning how people can read laws that are fairly clear and come to conclusions that seem to bear no relation to those laws, but which align perfectly with their political preferences.

In this case my reading of the laws aligns with my desired outcome. Am I blinded by partisanship? If so, I'd really like to know.

I'd like someone to present the best possible argument that the law is not in effect and/or that the TRO was violated. The best argument for that case that I've found is that made by Ed Fallone in Publish or Perish: The Budget Bill is Not Law. However, he falls short because he ignores the fact that the SoS did specify a publication date, and he tries to conflate the specification of the date with the act of publishing.

Bliss - I just read the link. Thank you. I would agree it is the most reasoned analysis I've seen against the conclusion I've drawn.

However, I agree with you that it suffers for want of an explantion of how the SOS can rescind his designation of a publication date, particularly when he was not ordered to do so (he was ordered not to "publish," which is not within his power anyway). Of course, all of this assumes for sake of argument that her order was valid, which is an argument for another comment.

Also, it ignores that both SOS's and LRB's functions here are purely ministerial. The idea that they could prevent a duly-enacted law from being published, thereby thwarting the legislative and gubanatorial will (in this and ANY case/any legislature/Governor) is truly shocking now and in its implications for future legislation.

The Republicans made a big mistake, and I hope they have learned from it. Their failure to designate an effective date (like, oh, I don't know, how's IMMEDIATELY!?) is what is allowing the opponents of the bill this one extra little argument, at taxpayer expense (from all sides - the DA and DOJ are arguing this out in front of a publicly-funded court).

It's such a comedy of errors. Although, it would be a lot funnier if we weren't paying for it.

They have them because they have already spent their political capital voting for it in the first place.

If that's true - why not re-vote? Theoretically you could re-vote 100x and it should be the same result every time right? Courage of your convictions right? I mean I've voted Republican all my life and never wavered in 16 years of voting. Never wavered.

LawGirl: Here is an argument to the contrary, written in a a reasoned manner, although I still disagree. My comment (now awaiting moderation) is at the end. Basically, it seems to me that Prof. Fallone is arguing that "designating a date for publication" means "publish" in reference to the SOS, but "publish" means something else in reference to the LRB.

But, I'm a MN lawyer, not a WI lawyer. We elect freaks and kooks, but they normally stick around.

It must be nice to be able to retire whenever you want with a pension and taxpayer funded health care. I wonder how many folks in the private sector could even dream of having these benefits. We really do take good care of our public servants.

Also, it ignores that both SOS's and LRB's functions here are purely ministerial. The idea that they could prevent a duly-enacted law from being published, thereby thwarting the legislative and gubanatorial will (in this and ANY case/any legislature/Governor) is truly shocking now and in its implications for future legislation.

Agreed, could you imagine if after the Secretary of State sent a newly signed law to the “official State newspaper” for publishing, the editorial board refused to publish it because they disagreed with that (which should be protected under the First Amendment). Would that mean that they would in effect have the ability to veto a law they disagree with even after the governor has signed it?

"It will be a net decrease of 7 - 9 % in take home income for most, depending on their pay."

In my company when things got bad in 2009, we got across the board pay cuts of 20%. Managers got cut more, and I personally got a 60% pay cut and we laid off many people. Since then we have recovered amazingly and have restored most of the pay and rehired some employees and are now profitable and optimistic.

So cry me a river. Like most taxpayers, we don't even have a retirement package. Public employees have no idea what it means to be self supporting. It means risk, hard work and sacrifices. Oh yea, and it means paying for other people who don't care about you having to do that.

In my company when things got bad in 2009, we got across the board pay cuts of 20%. Managers got cut more, and I personally got a 60% pay cut and we laid off many people. Since then we have recovered amazingly and have restored most of the pay and rehired some employees and are now profitable and optimistic.

So cry me a river. Like most taxpayers, we don't even have a retirement package. Public employees have no idea what it means to be self supporting. It means risk, hard work and sacrifices. Oh yea, and it means paying for other people who don't care about you having to do that.

You don't understand. Teachers are super, uber, super, super super super super special and need guaranteed lifetime employment plus super generous pension and other benefits, not to mention seniority. Because if you don't offer all these magical government guarantees you can't attract the "best & the brightest".

Remember teachers are special. They teach your kids. They are part of the foundation of society. Without teachers, there would be no Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, no hi-tech sector. IT was all made possible via government schooling by extra special teachers who are gods among us.

IMO Meade made the right move by leaving this show trial with two sides reasoning from abstractions. That has no straight forward emotional connections with real people, which makes it boring except to appellate lawyers who enjoy watching these shows like they would a fencing match.

Yea, I've been watching the best and brightest for the last month. As I said before, I'd never a hire any of them, based on what I saw. Imagine the ones who didn't get hired? They must be stuck in corners unable to extricate themselves until the gum falls out of their mouth's.

From what I saw, they do need special protections...from the ravages of living as a contributing member, but they need to stay away from important jobs. That may be the crux of why they have these jobs. Despite all of our concern "for the children", humans have always, and still do, value services to children less and hire accordingly.

How much difference does this make in their take-home? Are the dues more or less than the amount they're paying toward their benefits. Personally, I'd prefer to be saving, rather than pour money down the union rat hole.

I don't know how they can look taxpayers in the face and claim they deserve the benefits they've been getting, which were definitely a sweetheart deal between Democrats and the unions who helped them stay in office.

Also, it ignores that both SOS's and LRB's functions here are purely ministerial. The idea that they could prevent a duly-enacted law from being published, thereby thwarting the legislative and gubanatorial will (in this and ANY case/any legislature/Governor) is truly shocking now and in its implications for future legislation.

The real Constitutional issue (apart from the legalistic formalities, aka windbaggery) appears to be...jurisdictional, as y'all say. As in whether Walker/WI-GOP can even vote in a law which appears to revoke Fed policy which granted collective bargaining rights to public employees (signed in by JFK, IIRC). Some legal types have already mentioned it.

So it could go to SC--then, with the Scalia posse in charge it will probably be upheld (though it's arguably a strictly Fed-legislative issue, and joodiciary should not be involved at all).

but isn't that what shiloh/Ritmo have been haranguing us over for the last 2 months?~~~~

Actually I've made very few direct comments re: the WI union situation. Paraphrasing what I've said: Time will tell if this turns out to be pro or con for Walker and his foot soldiers as things change very quickly in politics and voters have short term memories.

What is somewhat entertaining is AA's ad nauseam anti-Obama threads, especially after she voted for him.

Again, AA apparently is one of many fence sitters fooled by Obama!

She's looking for that perfect politician and "we" can only wish her well in her endless search ...

As in whether Walker/WI-GOP can even vote in a law which appears to revoke Fed policy which granted collective bargaining rights to public employees (signed in by JFK, IIRC).

If you’re referring to the executive order that President Kennedy signed, it only applies to federal employees. Moreover even after the law takes effect, Wisconsin State employees under Governor Walker would continue to have more collective bargaining rights than federal employees do today under President Obama.

actually I've made very few direct comments re: the WI union situation. Paraphrasing what I've said: Time will tell if this turns out to be pro or con for Walker and his foot soldiers as things change very quickly in politics and voters have short term memories.

So anyone you oppose is a "foot soldier". You always put things in militaristic tones.

What is somewhat entertaining is AA's ad nauseam anti-Obama threads, especially after she voted for him.

Really point me the total # of actual anti-Obama threads. I'm fascinated.

Again, AA apparently is one of many fence sitters fooled by Obama!Yeah ignore the fact that she actually voted for him, so you can eaisly demonize AA.

She's looking for that perfect politician and "we" can only wish her well in her endless search ...

According to Legal Insurrection, Judge Sumi has "clarified" her TRO to forbid "further implementation" of the law until she rules on the merits (i.e., whether the open meetings law was violated). I didn't see anything about how she got jurisdiction over the Governor or the LRA.

"If union dues are no longer being collected, doesn't this make union membership effectively voluntary?"

Please don't tease me with the potential thought of never having to pay my idiotic union again.

Mmmmm...no more $20-25 month out of my check...no more grammatically and logically erred emails about how bad the right is...no more sheep coming into my office to tell me how important the union is...

J - Take the Taxpayer challenge. When taxes are cut, for instance income or property taxes, Taxpayers benefit because it increases their net income. If you do not benefit from a tax cut, then you are NOT a Taxpayer. Public Servants are NOT Taxpayers. They are the Servants of the working men and women of Wisconsin. It is the Working men and women who pay the bills of the State. We, the Taxpayers have had enough of the public servants abusing their union priviledges to vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. Please note that FDR was against public unions, and that public unions wern't legal until 1964, under JFK. Being a public servant is a priviledge, not a right. Public servants are free to quit and take their time and talents elsewhere if they do not like the conditions. Public Servants pay must be based upon what the Community can reasonably afford. If that places you in the lower class, so be it, it might be middle or even upper. Once again, public service is a priviledge, unhappy public servants are free to quit and will be replaced as needed. Thank you - Your Boss.

J - You got that part right, Scott Walker is following orders, those from US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. America is broke - bankrupt, and as QE2 ends in June they are trying to bring us down for a soft landing. Austerity is on the way.

What's that Jay the sodbuster? Touched a nerve, eh, like pointing out Walker/WI-GOP's possible violation of Fed law, not to say nearly confederate-like skullduggery?. You don't know who I voted for anyway, snitch. Go back to yr Klan sites, puto

Wisconsins pensions are only 54% funded. When QE2 ends in June, unless there is further QE, Markets will go down, and likely crash, taking a lot of money from Wisconsin with it. Imagine the budget horror there, with defined pension plan obligations. I think this is why Newt Gingrich was talking about a bill in Congress to allow States to declare bankruptcy. It appears that Congress won't bail out the States.

The Judges ruling should make the Moonbats happy here in Racine. Time to check out the JT site. Thanks for the link.

The former head of the Division of Water in the state Department of Natural Resources said rollbacks of clean water regulations in Gov. Scott Walker’s proposed budget could put the state in violation of federal laws.Walker has proposed reducing standards for phosphorus which were set in a rule passed by the Natural Resources Board last year. His budget also includes a plan to eliminate municipal stormwater standards that regulate pollutants running off streets, parking lots and other urban surfaces.But Todd Ambs, who until last year was chief of the DNR’s water division, said such changes could put the state in violation of the federal Clean Water Act as well as the Great Lakes Initiative, which sets standards for a number of pollutants, including phosphorus, and was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1995.

still waiting for the anti-unionist heroes of A-house (led by deeep thinkers such as Fen-tard) to start kickin' the sh*t out of the cops and firefighters like they have the schoolteachers. Actually J, most cops and firemen tend to be Republicans, much like the military. "Toughness" and "Democrat" just don't seem to go together. Seriously, have you seen the liberal fems at some of these rallies? You know, the skinny dirty ones with the unwashed hair under one of those big knit caps and wearing a Che or tie-dyed T-shirt? That's your typical Democrat J. Nothing to be afraid of (well, other than their stench). And what conservatives have you seen kicking the sh*t out of anyone? Word of advice J: put the crack pipe down.

In other budget language, Walker would entirely repeal urban stormwater standards, also placing the state in potential violation of federal water laws which require such standards."An important question," Ambs said, "would be why are we doing this? The No. 1 water quality problem in the state is polluted runoff. And one of the biggest sources of that is urban runoff."

Walker should answer why his budget is in violation of the Clean Water act. Also why would he propose non-scientific methods of measuring phosphorous? Is this part of the general anti-science, know-nothing-ism of the new GOP celebrated by air-heads like Sarah Palin?

I wonder if those guys ever heard of increasing their department's efficiency to get their job done with less money. But that would be heartless, wouldn't it?

I have no problem with that. It's the repeal of urban storm-water runoff standards that raises a huge red flag. Why would Walker do that? It just reinforces the Democrat stereotype of Republicans as destroyers of the environment for short-term corporate greed.

It's stuff like this that lends credence to the idea of Walker as a Trojan horse/stealth candidate. Did he run on union busting, on rolling back Federal environmental regulations? I read the wiki page on Walker and these were the main items he ran on:

* tax reform

* not accepting $800 million for high-speed rail

* anti-abortion in ALL cases including rape/incest/life of the mother

As the election drew near, Barrett attempted to portray Walker as an extremist on social issues.[35][38]

What's fascinating is that Walker won despite Wisconsin being a very socially liberal state. Chalk it up to economic panic without really thinking through the consequences?

Isn't it possible, Alex, that the WI runoff standards being repealed are more stringent than the federal runoff regulations promulgated by the EPA? If so, conforming the WI standards to federal law does not seem to me draconian or even unwise.

Isn't it possible, Alex, that the WI runoff standards being repealed are more stringent than the federal runoff regulations promulgated by the EPA? If so, conforming the WI standards to federal law does not seem to me draconian or even unwise.

The contention is the rollbacks make WI in violation of Federal runoff standards. So WI would be allowing more pollution then Federal standards allow.

I understand what the contentions are. I am just asking if there is any difference in the WI regs and the Federal Regs. WI is of course still subject to federal regulations and the WI can't law change that. If the WI law is the same as the Federal law, isn't the WI law unnecessary?

Up the thread a ways, I mentioned that Doug LaFollette was one of my least favorite WI politicians. I don't know what the hell I was thinking. It's not even close. He is, far and away, my least favorite. I haven't seen him in years, and I was stunned to see how old he was in the picture on JSONLINE.com.

enicar333 said...Wisconsins pensions are only 54% funded. When QE2 ends in June, unless there is further QE, Markets will go down, and likely crash, taking a lot of money from Wisconsin with it. Imagine the budget horror there, with defined pension plan obligations. I think this is why Newt Gingrich was talking about a bill in Congress to allow States to declare bankruptcy. It appears that Congress won't bail out the States.

The Judges ruling should make the Moonbats happy here in Racine. Time to check out the JT site. Thanks for the link.

3/29/11 7:15 PM

I like Gingrich but this bit about a bill to allow states to file bankruptcy is just silly. States are sovereign, if Congress can create a bankruptcy clause for the states then the states are not co-sovereigns but but sub-divisions of the federal government. The constitution would need to be amended to permit a state bankruptcy. The state can simply repudiate the debt; default and renegotiate the debt.

Quite apart from all of the various issues at hand (and for my part, I'm quite clear on being opposed to the very concept of/philosophy behind *public sector* unions, because I have been for decades, meaning not just two):

WTF is THIS?

What, we don't think it'd be valuable for there to be male teachers, especially in K-5, though not limited to that?

Jeez, it seems there are some OTHER issues in education which some have been blissfully sleeping through.

And yeah, up front, I'll cop to that touching a nerve: You bet your ass it did, whoever the ass was who wrote it. Not because I'm overly sensitive on that point, but because that sort of attitude is ignorant, ill-informed, stupid and a huge pox on trying to address a serious issue.

I have not seen anything that suggests the pensions for the state are so poorly funded, and indeed every link I've seen has Wisconsin as one of the best states, funding-wise, for pensions, so I'm curious where the 54% value came from.

My relatives from WI just had dinner with us tonight and I fear that the good citizens of Wisconsin are going to be disgusted by the leftist flimflammery, but at the same time perhaps deceived by the push-polls by PPP & otherr disreputable polling operations into thinking that the Supreme Court should have another Demonrat.

Or at least not vote in the April 5th elections for the incumbent Republican. If this happens, the lamestream MSM will go bonkers and the brouhaha will continue all summer while recall petitions and other nonsense take away the focus from the real issues of the school unions' having still more power to negotiate than the SEIU has with the federal government.

It's amazing how the Goebbels in the NYT, the Kellers and the Pinch Sulzbergers, seem to orchestrate the media side of the seamy union thugs & white house operatives doing their funding of all sorts of outside agitation in Wisconsin. That's what my teacher relative opined, anyway, and she's taught science in the Milwaukee public school system for decades.

If you're still following this thread, you migth be interested in an update to the Fallon v. Esenberg discussion. It contains a link to audio of a radio discussion between the two. I have not listened to it myself.